The Failed Ask That Raised Money
The “R” word is put in strategy decks, conference sessions, CRM fields, and donor journey maps with arrows pointing toward enlightenment. Then we measure the Relationship like a vending machine.
Did the donor say yes today? If yes, success. If no, failure. That’s awfully binary and myopic.
Case in point, giving rose by almost 7% in the six months following a donor saying “no” to a telefundraising upgrade call. And there was no later drop-off, which means this wasn’t donors moving tomorrow’s gift into today’s column.
And the math adds up here since the “no” is 10x more likely than the yes. The yes people are still worth more per person but this 7% lift applies across the giant pile of calls the sector labels as failur.
And where does the “no” lift come from? It’s strongest among donors with lower prior giving intensity. Related, the RFM data used to predict who’ll say yes was only weakly predictive. The “upgrade” model is limiting your upside.
And the phone adds one more wrinkle: who picks up is heavily idiosyncratic. You can model the file to death, laminate the deciles, name the top segment something heroic, and still have the donor miss the call because they were walking the dog or arguing with a self-checkout machine.
The conclusion? Call more broadly.
I own a telefundraising company and as far as I know, we’re the only ones who systematically measure need satisfaction after the call. I can say with high certainty that the why behind this “no” uplift is because we’re leaving people feeling more choiceful, more sure that their support matters and more connected.
That may sound soft if your worldview was assembled entirely from response-rate reports and believing the question that matters is, “What did the call raise today?”
The better question is, “What did the call do to the donor’s future value?”
The sector uses the R word but it only pays for immediate compliance. That is the gap.
Kevin
One response to “The Failed Ask That Raised Money”
Leave a Reply
Leave a Reply
Behavioral Science Q & A
Thanks so much for raising this. Yes, capturing donor information can be helpful for stewardship like newsletters, thank-you letters, impact updates. But how you ask matters. Forcing full data capture introduces friction that can significantly depress conversion, many donors may simply abandon the process. Beyond the friction itself, required fields also shift the emotional experience […]
Read Full Answer
Unlike holidays that everyone already knows, Giving Tuesday is a created event. Many donors recognize the name but not the exact timing, so referencing it becomes a helpful cue. It serves as a reminder and taps into social norm activation (“everyone’s giving today”), which boosts response. However, we still want it paired with the mission, […]
Read Full Answer
When a subject line leads with the match (“Your gift matched!”), it risks triggering market-norm thinking: the sense that giving is a financial transaction rather than an act rooted in values, identity, and care. This shift reduces intrinsic motivation and, over time, can weaken donor satisfaction and long-term engagement. It also makes the email indistinguishable […]
Read Full Answer
There’s no evidence that QR codes suppress mid-value giving; all available research suggests they either help or have no negative effect. In fact, behavioral and usability research consistently shows the opposite: reducing friction at any point in the donation process increases completion rates and total response. And that has nothing to do with capacity and […]
Read Full Answer
What you’re experiencing is very common. Resistance often isn’t about capability, but about motivation quality. If board members feel pushed into fundraising, that triggers controlled motivation (low quality motivation) i.e. obligation, guilt, or fear of judgment, which often results in avoidance. Instead, we need to create conditions for volitional motivation (high quality motivation) by satisfying […]
Read Full Answer
That’s a really thoughtful question, and you’re not the first to raise it. Many of our clients have been cautious about placing the ask at the very end. To address their concern, we’ve tested both approaches, and the results are clear: when the ask comes last, even if that means it appears on the second […]
Read Full Answer
hi, this is great. Many years ago, I worked with an agency where we tested everything (including if male callers did better than female callers with female donors). We looked at the subsequent giving after a donor had said no and indeed several of those donors had decided to join the monthly giving program afterwards. A phone call builds a powerful connection. The biggest challenge right now is to reach the donor live, so it would be interesting to see the impact a phone message will have on future giving. I’d say, can’t hurt.